And speaking of Judy, watched tonight I Could Go on Singing (1963) which I one of her best performances. Just watching her perform "It Never Was You" and ""I'll Go My Way by Myself" is worth the price of a ticket. There's also a long uncut scene with Garland saying she's not a piece of pastry to be cut up and served that ranks among the best dramatic scenes I've seen.

drednm wrote:And speaking of Judy, watched tonight I Could Go on Singing (1963) which I one of her best performances. Just watching her perform "It Never Was You" and ""I'll Go My Way by Myself" is worth the price of a ticket. There's also a long uncut scene with Garland saying she's not a piece of pastry to be cut up and served that ranks among the best dramatic scenes I've seen.

I COULD GO ON SINGING is a film I actually prefer to ASIB. The simply staged musical sequences are reminiscent of her TV series, and her acting in this is great. The plot, although a bit soapy, dosen't seem as overblown as in the other film. I picked up a DVD of this in December, but I have yet to watch it.

drednm wrote:And speaking of Judy, watched tonight I Could Go on Singing (1963) which I one of her best performances. Just watching her perform "It Never Was You" and ""I'll Go My Way by Myself" is worth the price of a ticket. There's also a long uncut scene with Garland saying she's not a piece of pastry to be cut up and served that ranks among the best dramatic scenes I've seen.

I COULD GO ON SINGING is a film I actually prefer to ASIB. The simply staged musical sequences are reminiscent of her TV series, and her acting in this is great. The plot, although a bit soapy, doesn't seem as overblown as in the other film. I picked up a DVD of this in December, but I have yet to watch it.

Garland actually looks pretty good in this one and is in good voice. She has one ghastly red outfit she wears onstage, with giant unmoving boobs she should have left in a drawer somewhere. Soap aside, she turns in a very good and very moving performance with several very long scenes without cuts. Dirk Bogarde wisely does try to compete and lets her have the best moments. I had not remembered this film kindly and only watched it again to hear her sing "It Never Was You." Glad I watched.

Ooohhh! I remember the red dress. Those hills were alive with the sound of music. If the photographer had not shot from a low angle, it wouldn't have been so unflattering. But her rendition of "By Myself" overcame such picyune dissent.

I love both the 1954 and 1937 version of this film. I feel that Garland and March gave outstanding performances in each film. What I want to see is Fredrick March replacing James Mason (a fine actor in his own right) in the 1954 version. Considering how much photographic trickery went into "Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid" and "Zelig" this could be done. I know its sacrilegious but it would be a whole lot of fun.

Sounds like in the minority here, but I think "Born In A Trunk" is an outstanding number. Long, yes, but so what? There are many long musical sequences scattered throughout film history. It's telling the story of the first 25 or so years of a performer's life, so there's a lot to cover. The art direction is beyond impressive - color (of both the sets and the costumes), space, costuming, realism and surrealism all compliment each other with great effectiveness. And moreover, if a viewer finds the number truly intolerable, we all have the option to use the skip button on our remotes if we are watching at home or to go to the lobby if in a theater.

Donald Binks wrote:I think that in this 21st Century there is some disdain on film-editing in general. Not only do we now try and gather up every bit of film that was left on the cutting room floor in order to try and make a 15 hour version of some classic that was deemed "incomplete" - we now have modern films that seem to be completely devoid of any editing whatsoever. These test our endurance levels as none of them seems to come in under two hours.

Somehow the situation reminds me of a paragraph Alexander Pope wrote a coupla centuries ago: "The grand ambition of one sort of scholars is to increase the number of various lections [i.e., "variant readings"]; which they have done to such a degree of obscure diligence, that (as Sir H. Savil observ'd) we now begin to value the first Editions of books as most correct, because they have been the least corrected. The prevailing passion of others is to discover new meanings in an author, whom they will cause to appear mysterious purely for the vanity of being thought to unravel him. These account it a disgrace to be of the opinion of those that preceded them; and it is generally the fate of such people who will never say what was said before, to say what will never be said after them . . . This Disposition of finding out different significations in one thing, may be the effect of either too much, or too little wit; For Men of a right understanding generally see at once all that an Author can reasonably mean, but others are apt to fancy two meanings for want of knowing one." (from Pope's Observations on the First Book of the Iliad of Homer in his translation of The Iliad).

_____"She confessed subsequently to Cottard that she found me remarkably enthusiastic; he replied that I was too emotional, that I needed sedatives, and that I ought to take up knitting." —Marcel Proust (Cities of the Plain).

I really really like the March/ Gaynor version I am a big fan of Fredric March I like him in almost every thing that I have seen him in. It is great to see the the shot of the Chinese theater with posters on display of Selznick"s Garden of Allah in glorious Technicolor. I have a problem with the plot of the Garland version. Judy is seen by a lot of the industry at an industry function and nobody notices her talent???? It would have been interesting to have the head of the studio put her under contract and have Norman Maine's girlfriend sabotage things. I can appreciate Born in a Trunk-it is a tour de force but I have never understood why it wasn't used as the big finale number with the premiere at the Chinese theater and Judy seeing Norman's footprints as in the original version. I like the Lose the Longface number -Judy is charming with the kids and it makes the scene in the dressing room with studio head Oliver Niles all the more poignant--because she has to "go on and finish the number". I could really do without the long Somewhere Theres a Someone number-just tries too hard to be Kay Thompson. This film has some of the worst and most unflattering costuming that I have ever seen -IMO. The Born in a Trunk patchwork outfit makes Judy look huge-the whole color design of the RED curtains-RED roses, RED bellboys ....is just bizarre and most of Judy's costumes make her look OLD.Good costuming can mask figure flaws unfortunately most of the costumes Judy wears emphasizes them!!! Cary Grant said no to the Norman Maine part ...too bad... it would have completely changed the movie. The Man That Got Away number is a classic but the rest of the movie seems a bit offtrack at times. I do like to watch parts of this version but haven't watched the whole thing in a long -long time-I don't have the fortitude.

They also edit to make money - the hack job on ASIB was done after its premiere, to allow more screenings. Cukor refused to ever watch the film after it was butchered.

Ditto for poor METROPOLIS, another butcher job, possibly the worst such mangling in the history of the cinema. Both ASIB and METROPOLIS are invalid examples of editing to make a film better, as both were butchered at the protest of the films' creators.

wich2 wrote:Not to rile up poor Von (wherever he may be), as well as Syberberg, but -

>Ditto for poor METROPOLIS, another butcher job, possibly the worst such mangling in the history of the cinema.<

- "GREED"?

Everyone talks about how evil Thalberg was for editing Greed. No one mentions that the previous administration -- at the Goldwyn Company -- just stuck the film on the shelf as unreleasable, where it would have been junked along with 95% of the films from before they put MGM together.

How's your copy of The Devil's Passkey?

Bob

New and vigorous impulses seem to me to be at work in it,[the cinema] and doubtless before long it will drop all slavish copying of the stage and strike out along fresh paths. -- Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree

BGM wrote:I really really like the March/ Gaynor version I am a big fan of Fredric March I like him in almost every thing that I have seen him in. It is great to see the the shot of the Chinese theater with posters on display of Selznick"s Garden of Allah in glorious Technicolor. I have a problem with the plot of the Garland version. Judy is seen by a lot of the industry at an industry function and nobody notices her talent???? It would have been interesting to have the head of the studio put her under contract and have Norman Maine's girlfriend sabotage things. I can appreciate Born in a Trunk-it is a tour de force but I have never understood why it wasn't used as the big finale number with the premiere at the Chinese theater and Judy seeing Norman's footprints as in the original version. I like the Lose the Longface number -Judy is charming with the kids and it makes the scene in the dressing room with studio head Oliver Niles all the more poignant--because she has to "go on and finish the number". I could really do without the long Somewhere Theres a Someone number-just tries too hard to be Kay Thompson. This film has some of the worst and most unflattering costuming that I have ever seen -IMO. The Born in a Trunk patchwork outfit makes Judy look huge-the whole color design of the RED curtains-RED roses, RED bellboys ....is just bizarre and most of Judy's costumes make her look OLD.Good costuming can mask figure flaws unfortunately most of the costumes Judy wears emphasizes them!!! Cary Grant said no to the Norman Maine part ...too bad... it would have completely changed the movie. The Man That Got Away number is a classic but the rest of the movie seems a bit offtrack at times. I do like to watch parts of this version but haven't watched the whole thing in a long -long time-I don't have the fortitude.

Judy did not wear clothes well.... yet the mid-century gown she wears in the "Melancholy Baby" number is a stunner.

Judy did not wear clothes well.... yet the mid-century gown she wears in the "Melancholy Baby" number is a stunner.

Yes that is a great gown and she looks good when she goes to get her first paycheck and is told to go to L -the polka dot top and shirt is very slimming-There were several costume designers used.....and it shows.

I just got some new info on the Michael Arick footage from someone who says he's seen it, on VHS. Has anyone heard this before?

According to this guy, Arick does not have a complete print. He has alternate takes that were being thrown out. They are silent, and I wonder how well they would synch up with the soundtrack. Much of the missing footage has no dialogue, so that would be no problem. But Tommy Noonan saying goodbye to Judy before the bus leaves, her phone call in the phone booth, Judy meeting James Mason on the rooftop, and their scene in the car would be tough if not impossible.

Also, I would be surprised if the outtakes he salvaged happen to include all of the ten minutes of missing footage. I will try to press this guy to remember what he saw on VHS.

__________________________

The people I spoke with from Warners knew the names of the 2 people that have the footage and that it does exist. One of the persons that has that footage is Arick, who took alternate takes home...from the trash and when it was discarded Warners didnt give a darn about the footage and considered it worthless since it consisted of alternate takes and not the actual footage in the final print. Arick has kept that footage all these years....it has only become important since the actual footage has proved to have been destroyed and a complete final print does not exist. The 2nd person that has the footage obtained most of what he has from Arick in trades for other lost footage that he too took from Warners at a different period of time.

I saw the missing footage from this 2nd person. He has it on VHS tape and thats the medium I saw it on....but it had no sound. Which makes sense since the soundtrack was on stereo tape and not on film when it was put in the Warner archives..... Warners is aware of BOTH of these 2 people and their names and their addresses but will not make an attempt to prosecute because they prob wont be able to....and IF faced with prosecution the 'collectors' have threatened to destroy the film to eliminate any evidence.

It is also been confirmed by many people that Arick has other alternate takes from many Warner films of the 1953-1956 era....Giant, Rebel Without A Cause, etc....that were thrown away and instead of making their way to the trash bin, Arick scarfed them and took them home. In a sense he did preserve them for posterity, but his evil little mind wont share them, for fear of prosecution and also because these weirdo collectors dont like to 'share' what they feel is their stuff....it makes them feel special if people want these clips and people like Arick are the only ones that have ever seen them.

marknyc wrote:I just got some new info on the Michael Arick footage from someone who says he's seen it, on VHS. Has anyone heard this before?

According to this guy, Arick does not have a complete print. He has alternate takes that were being thrown out. They are silent, and I wonder how well they would synch up with the soundtrack. Much of the missing footage has no dialogue, so that would be no problem. But Tommy Noonan saying goodbye to Judy before the bus leaves, her phone call in the phone booth, Judy meeting James Mason on the rooftop, and their scene in the car would be tough if not impossible.

Also, I would be surprised if the outtakes he salvaged happen to include all of the ten minutes of missing footage. I will try to press this guy to remember what he saw on VHS.

__________________________

The people I spoke with from Warners knew the names of the 2 people that have the footage and that it does exist. One of the persons that has that footage is Arick, who took alternate takes home...from the trash and when it was discarded Warners didnt give a darn about the footage and considered it worthless since it consisted of alternate takes and not the actual footage in the final print. Arick has kept that footage all these years....it has only become important since the actual footage has proved to have been destroyed and a complete final print does not exist. The 2nd person that has the footage obtained most of what he has from Arick in trades for other lost footage that he too took from Warners at a different period of time.

I saw the missing footage from this 2nd person. He has it on VHS tape and thats the medium I saw it on....but it had no sound. Which makes sense since the soundtrack was on stereo tape and not on film when it was put in the Warner archives..... Warners is aware of BOTH of these 2 people and their names and their addresses but will not make an attempt to prosecute because they prob wont be able to....and IF faced with prosecution the 'collectors' have threatened to destroy the film to eliminate any evidence.

It is also been confirmed by many people that Arick has other alternate takes from many Warner films of the 1953-1956 era....Giant, Rebel Without A Cause, etc....that were thrown away and instead of making their way to the trash bin, Arick scarfed them and took them home. In a sense he did preserve them for posterity, but his evil little mind wont share them, for fear of prosecution and also because these weirdo collectors dont like to 'share' what they feel is their stuff....it makes them feel special if people want these clips and people like Arick are the only ones that have ever seen them.

Arick and the other collector are probably scared (as you say), but they truly shouldn't be, not in this day and age when people don't really care. Time has moved on since the 60's 70's and 80's when the law (of that time) deemed it a serious offense to have collected material such as this. And now it has transpired that these are actual out-takes (and NOT takes that were seen within the actual copyrighted film) then as far as I see it; legally speaking it cannot be a "crime". It would surely only be a crime if he had the actual deleted footage, (because that's the ONLY footage that is copyrighted) -- NOT the out-takes! Hence the reason why whenever a television documentary is talking about a famous film, they ALWAYS show scenes from the trailer, and it always reads in black lettering on the screen: "Scene taken from Theatrical Trailer", because of course the trailer doesn't have copyright on it either... In fact talking of this; I once saw (on a documentary about Judy Garland) a scene of her singing "The Trolley Song" from the movie "Meet Me In St Louis", and on screen came up some writing at the bottom saying -- "Footage taken from M-G-M Theatrical Trailer synced up with Vocals from a Radio Show"..... I remember thinking, "God they've gone to a A LOT of trouble there!!"...

But seriously -- isn't this Arick guy pi$$ed off because he gave Warners lost footage from "A Streetcar Named Desire" (after they [quite rightly so] promised him a screen credit for his efforts), and then didn't they go back on their word or something? I'm sure I read that back a few years ago.

Regarding the problem of synchronization between the out-takes (that whoever has??) and the fully-uncut optical soundtrack; there would no problem there in this day and age. They can manipulate the words (via the soundtrack), the order the words, whether or not one word is said too fast or too slow... in other words they can now manipulate the dialogue to fit the lips of the actors pretty well...

They used this procedure for the "Nutburger" scene on the new blu-ray which came out a few years ago, (as that scene was also an out-take), and did an amazing job at getting it to properly sync to Judy Garlands lips. See below.

In this day and age there would be no problem in matching up the silent footage of those long lost missing scenes. The digital technology of today can manipulate the timing of the audio, to synchronize, and perfectly match the [speaking] lips of Garland and Mason on the existing soundtrack, (for anyone who doesn't know -- the entire uncut soundtrack has already been located, but for the DVD and blu-ray releases they even had to cut about 5 minutes of that out because they simply could not locate enough stills to cover the sound. They also had to shorten a rather lengthy sequence of the film where there was no dialogue at all; it was just Mason trying to find Garland, and whilst the gorgeous music sounded luscious, it had to be shortened because once again, there were not enough stills.

I'm rather concerned about these scenes existing on VHS? When you say "they exist on VHS", do you mean to say that Michael Arick has copied them from 35mm to VHS, but he still has the original 35mm stored elsewhere? i.e. he showed this "witness" the VHS copy purely for ease-of-access?

Also, I cannot understand why Warner's don't just SHOW Michael Arick the respect he deserves (for saving these takes) and give him a screen-credit on the next incarnation (i.e blu-ray, or Super-HD blu-ray) of ASIB, and then everybody would be happy! (Because above, it says that Warner's are "aware that Arick has the lost material"). So if they are aware, then why aren't they doing something about it?

I'm well aware of the ability of modern editing software - the clip above comparing synch is one I created, and I've done lots of work synching alternate musical tracks to video. But I still think it would be extremely difficult to synch up alternate takes of long dialogue scenes. Better than nothing, but certainly not what we hoped Arick had.

We also don't even know what scenes Arick has - remember, these were taken from the trash, so the chance that they contain the missing ten minutes is slim, I think.

I have asked my source (who says he saw them on VHS) which scenes he saw, but he never responded. (He saw a VHS that Arick had given another collector as part of a trade - Arick has the original 35mm.)

I'm told WB has reached out to Arick but that he stubbornly refuses to cooperate. I think we should publicly shame him into sharing whatever it is that he has!

Just when you thought it was safe to finally believe that four versions of the same story was quite enough for one lifetime, here comes the next one: A Star is Born (2018), directed by Bradley Cooper. Writers: Robert Carson (story by), Bradley Cooper (screenplay). Stars: Sam Elliott, Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga. I'm just wondering how they will work Illuminati symbolism and Satanic worship into this new version.

David Menefee wrote:Just when you thought it was safe to finally believe that four versions of the same story was quite enough for one lifetime, here comes the next one: A Star is Born (2018), directed by Bradley Cooper. Writers: Robert Carson (story by), Bradley Cooper (screenplay). Stars: Sam Elliott, Bradley Cooper, Lady Gaga. I'm just wondering how they will work Illuminati symbolism and Satanic worship into this new version.

I was hoping that Clint Eastwood would get his version with Beyoncé made.